Saving Lives in the Golden Hour: Supreme Court Directs Timely Implementation of Section 162 of the Motor Vehicles Act

Summary of the Judgment

• Case Name: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors.

• Case Number: Writ Petition (C) No. 295 of 2012

• Date of Judgment: 8th January 2025

• Court: Supreme Court of India

• Judges: Honorable Justice Abhay S. Oka and Honorable Justice Augustine George Masih

• Acts and Sections:

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 162 and 164-B

  • General Insurance Companies (Nationalisation) Act, 1972

• Cited Judgments: 

  • Parmanand Katara v. Union of India and Ors. (1989) 4 SCC 286

Introduction

The Supreme Court's judgment in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. is a landmark decision addressing the critical issue of timely medical care for motor vehicle accident victims during the "golden hour." The court analysed the legislative intent behind Sections 162 and 164-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, introduced through the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, and highlighted the need for their effective implementation.

Legislative Framework

1. Section 162 of the MV Act:

   • This section mandates the creation of a scheme for cashless treatment during the golden hour, defined under Section 2(12-A) as the critical hour following a traumatic injury where prompt medical care can prevent death.

   • The provision imposes an obligation on general insurance companies to cover the treatment costs for road accident victims.

2. Section 164-B of the MV Act:

   • Establishes the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund for purposes such as cashless treatment, compensation in hit-and-run cases, and other related expenses.

   • Ensures that compulsory insurance cover is provided to all road users.

Court’s Observations

The bench, comprising Honorable Justice Abhay S. Oka and Honorable Justice Augustine George Masih, emphasized the crucial role of immediate medical assistance in saving lives. The judgment iterates the constitutional mandate under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life, and observed:

"The provision made in Section 162 for framing a scheme for providing cashless treatment in the golden hour seeks to uphold and protect the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution."

Despite the legislative framework, the court noted with dismay that the Central Government had failed to implement a scheme under Section 162. While the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund was operational, its potential remained unfulfilled due to the absence of a detailed and actionable plan.

Concerns Highlighted by the Court

1. Delay in Implementation:

   • The court pointed out that more than reasonable time had elapsed since the enactment of the provisions, yet no scheme had been framed.

   • The bench directed the Central Government to finalise the scheme by 14th March 2025 and place it on record by 21st March 2025.

2. Draft Concept Note Issues:

   • The court examined a draft concept note presented by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. Two significant concerns were raised:

     • A maximum payout limit of ₹1,50,000.

     • Treatment coverage restricted to seven days.

   • The court deemed these provisions insufficient to achieve the legislative objective.

"The scheme must be such that it serves the object of saving lives by providing immediate medical treatment in the golden hour."

Implementation Challenges

The judgment also explored the operational difficulties in executing the legislative vision:

1. Pending Claims:

   • The General Insurance Corporation (GIC) reported that out of 1662 claims filed under the hit-and-run scheme, 1026 remained unresolved as of August 2024.

   • The court directed GIC to coordinate with claimants and address document deficiencies promptly.

2. Portal Development:

   • A digital portal for processing claims was still under development. The court urged GIC to expedite this process, ensuring transparency and efficiency in claim settlements.

Comparative Reference

The judgment cited Parmanand Katara v. Union of India and Ors. (1989) 4 SCC 286, where the Supreme Court had observed:

"Every injured citizen brought for medical treatment to a hospital should be instantaneously given medical aid to preserve life. Thereafter, the procedural criminal law should be allowed to operate in order to avoid death."

The court reiterated that hospitals must prioritise saving lives over administrative formalities or financial considerations.

Directions Issued by the Court

1. Scheme Finalisation:

   • The Central Government must finalise and file the scheme by 14th March 2025.

   • A compliance affidavit must be submitted detailing the scheme’s implementation plan.

2. Pending Claim Resolution:

   • GIC was directed to resolve pending claims by addressing document deficiencies and facilitating communication with claimants.

3. Digital Portal Completion:

   • The court emphasised the need for a functional portal to streamline claim processing and enable state authorities to address deficiencies.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the judiciary's proactive role in ensuring the enforcement of legislative mandates designed to protect lives. By issuing clear directions and setting strict deadlines, the court has sought to bridge the gap between legislative intent and ground-level implementation.

The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of timely government action, particularly in matters of life and death. As the court aptly noted:

"Once the scheme is framed and its implementation starts, it will save the lives of several injured persons who succumb to injury simply because they do not receive requisite medical treatment during the golden hour."